Digraphs *and* Unicode pretty-glyphs, for arrows, triangle, etc.
corey at octayn.net
Thu Apr 5 09:45:20 PDT 2012
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:00:56 -0500, Adam Shannon <adam at ashannon.us> wrote:
> I don't see anything inherently wrong with adding some nice sugar to
> ES, because the people who will be using this "math heavy" notation
> will be those who are used to it. The "everyday" ecmascript programmer
> probably won't touch these because they might add extra work for them.
> Plus, it'd be nice to be able to read math in ES (for us math oriented
You don't see anything wrong with making the spec larger, implementation
harder, adding more to learn, more for a decent text editor to support, and
more burden on everyone who doesn't want to use those fancy unicode thingers?
As mentioned elsewhere on the list, it's best as a display option in a text
editor, not as a language feature. It doesn't even introduce minification
benefits since the number of bytes in any of those fancy symbols encoded to
utf8 is >= the equivalent number of 'regular' operators.
More information about the es-discuss